yy 
ts 


nie 
9) Bg 


Aue 
bad 


‘¥ 
as 


Siiec aera! 
Ges oa 


“4 
Fae Pag he 
peti i 

© ae 


te 


gwide 


i i 
a 
4 


Pstholeite 
iit: . 


i Sie), 
, inn i 
nat ts We if} 
¥ 


AS TSEE. 


= 


us 
Dea heu 
i 


ant 
epya a 


Hiepae vudeeiy 
Pure 


ree ree to 
rie 


red 
tat} 


ie ; 
ee 


¥ 
9 


‘ 
ie a 
iseaar tea 
sy) ee fat fs i 
; ‘f ae th 


4 
ate 
ar 


tit 


‘ 
Hehe 
Hs ae 
ithe 


yh 7 : 
rod “4 
: 
rade 

i 
Dat 


4 


=a 


ot 


pees 
Bt at PE AEE 
ze ae 
TeSasars: cree] 
yet eS 2 
ene Sayeed 
eae rare 
x StS 
ere ee 


= 


PB ee 


apse at 
ceati 
CEO a * 


== 


ce BY? i) 
ot an 
rye * 
ee 


Me 


nite 
‘ 
* 


a 


i 


eS 


ee 


= - 
wesc eeee! 


ante 
te PALL 
at ati 


ie 


ay 
is 
4 


AsO Uy 
treet’ 
Rites 
Wgiyk 


i 
ieee, 
f 


eaaety 
at 
iy | 
pL aha 
PARAS aA 
why i 


Ai Hints ee 
teeta 
‘ Pr 


Pek, 


pect atEsees 


<2 


uy 
re 


Creice 
ot ry 
t 


- 4 
ye} +3 
saat pl 
iy 

eies 


BL 
iy u 


L pe hs 
ahaa Rate 
ay isle Bae 





bank 
penstites ts 
Det ap Reber 


Digitized by the Internet Archive 
In 2022 with funding from 
Princeton Theological Seminary Library 


https://archive.org/details/relationofrateof0Ohigh 


/, 


y 
ear PSYCHOLOGICAL REVIEW PUBLICATIONS Fh herceep te 156 


Psychological Monographs 


EDITED BY 


SHEPHERD I. FRANZ, Univ. or Cattr., So. Br. 
HOWARD C. WARREN, Princeton University (Review) 
JOHN B. WATSON, New York, N. Y. (J. of Exp. Psych.) 
MADISON BENTLEY, University or Ittinois (Index) and 
S. W. FERNBERGER, UNIversity or PENNSYLVANIA (Bulletin) 


SLIDES INePSYCHOLOGY 
FROM 


THE JESUP PSYCHOLOGICAL LABORATORY 


Relation of the Rate of Response to 
Intelligence 


we 


/ BY 
y 
Pee UGH SMELT: Pre D. 
Professor of Psychology 
North Carolina College for Women 


PoverOLOGICAL’ REVIEW \COMPANY 


PRINCETON, N. J. 
AND ALBANY, N. Y. 


Acenis: G. E. STECHERT & CO., Lonpon (2 Star Yard, Carey St., W. C.); 
Lerpzic (Hospital St., 10); Parts (76, rue de Rennes) 










M 

i 

me 
z 


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 


The writer wishes to acknowledge his indebtedness 
to those whose aid has made this study possible. He is 
especially indebted to Dr. Joseph Peterson of George 
Peabody College for Teachers for his encouragement 
and criticisms during the progress of the work. He is 
also indebted to Dr. S. C. Garrison for the privilege of 
using in the study certain data which the latter had 
collected. 










rn . | i he may } 

f ¥ i , Na Roa \ 

wont i ea? bie 

PICT LE e pete as 
H NAA \ Af a jaa 

i TAN / 





















, } whi 

A NMiniet ers. : aR ty 

! te re LPN a be Bal 
ait ; : Ay AVN ae ad at aR linear tM py ae ee tL Y) 

: ‘ y ; t: Pesta eeine co a 
’ at at < PAS aa Gal OLDE fae eh cas 

. Fer) As AUJAN EA Pa Gus tt aS ay ae <3, Oa EX Re 
ata) Sait ‘ oF : 4e) : 


2 ates ‘ - Pat - y 7 _, ‘= 
| bane avi Pao PT Ee a 


aoe 4 MMV GH arent) Paper ar le kl 








/ 
ie {/ Pes 
' ’ * ‘ { 
att wpiiehnde b ftyis +1 
. a AA Ca eS | ' 
5 Roe : bet SAS 
f - ae “4 Aye : ‘ evils ; 
, Reb .apae > & ; ft \ 
"aT \ ( verre. cciy 
mt % eet } barat NiTh one td 
i) a Ay : "3 i re 








APR TERE ACTA 





ty hes * Ou! 


ma 


a 
e 

7 ie, 
y FP), 


CONTENTS 


PAGE 

Be PT LON ce eersgialie ura alt anh delat Maen aimee betes vii 

TAL Cte POOA TS. See ye at, oo ee ee oe ee 1 

110, VOUS G4 DLO Peed Spi pee teen Beppe ees URL her nL Sean el a PSE 11 
III. EXPERIMENTAL MATERIAL AND PROCE- 

UNL AR Ei ge 8 ele eh en ga 12 

ote pe U ET CELE sO Sate ius EIR 1 A 12 

Pee TSeAN I CL EST) PROCEDURE: 250) '5 oteialgyo le atade als 12 

RE ET DCA TAY BPS at A RE OE eg RS A 16 

PAmMRELVABILITY OF VBASURES IG onc )i sla hive deata ase 16 

eT ICAL UREAT MENT <u cia wid res sic wisle 18 

Mest Aro sANDL CONCLUSIONS?! ..03007 220.0%. St 


pam TL ORMMEPO IAL to Nats Wa)s Nas bls aru Sear oke eo a hehe Shee alates e's a8. 


eng th De 
ei ges At x 
eames 
rs Pane a 


ie A Npiey 
ye A) A ie ra 


Ww 
yt ei 
fom 





ad vie % 
asi Ke 
- 


i Pie uty? 


INTRODUCTION 


Recent years have witnessed an increasingly wide use of tests 
both as measures of intelligence and as measures of abilities in 
various special lines. The development of many of these tests 
has apparently proceeded upon the assumption that test scores 
made under definite time limits are not seriously influenced by 
that fact. This is especially true in the field of intelligence tests. 
A brief survey of the group tests of intelligence reveals the fact 
that among the scores of such tests now on the market one rarely 
finds a test which does not employ definite time limits within 
which the individual tested must give whatever evidence he can 
of his mental capacity. 

This tendency to extreme simplification of mental testing 
through increased emphasis upon the rate of response, that is, 
through taking as a measure of intelligence the number of exer- 
cises an individual can do correctly in a definite length of time, is 
most explicitly brought out in a recent revision of the Binet-Simon 
scale (13). 

The author says that “ The large number of new tests intro- 
duced that score directly in terms of time and error will indicate 
the importance given this matter” (13, p. 22). Of the 80 tests 
used in ages 6 to 15 inclusive, 53, or 65 per cent, are timed tests. 
There are 13 tests that are credited in more than one-year level on 
the basis of the time and error scores. Some of these are credited 
in as many as six different year levels, according to the time and 
error scores made. The tests for age levels of 12 to 15 inclusive 
are made up entirely of time-error tests. 

For example, an opposites test of 20 words is given and each 
response timed. The errors and the average time are added. 
If the sum equals 5.3 or less the child is credited with 13 years; 
if 4.2 or less, he is credited with 14 years; and if 3.3, with 15 
years. Similarly, a column of mixed fundamentals in integers is 

vii 


Vili INTRODUCTION 


scored on a time and error basis and the various results regarded 
as indicative of various levels of intelligence. : 

The fact that emphasis upon time limit has grown out of an 
attempt so to simplify test administration that the possibility of 
errors at the hands of the untrained may be reduced to the min- 
imum does not mitigate the seriousness of the consequences, if it 
should be found that rate of response or speed of work may in 
many cases be largely independent of intelligence. And oddly 
enough the literature of mental testing does not reveal experi- 
mental studies that even approximately settle the matter. The 
Army experiment, the only serious attempt, made no claims of 
finality, though it showed that within limits there was a correlation 
between speed and intelligence as measured by the Alpha test.. 

The absence of an adequate empirical basis for postulating any 
particular degree of relationship between speed of responding to 
intelligence test material and quality of responses or of some 
acceptable criterion of intelligence, makes the question of prac- 
tical as well as of theoretical importance. It is the purpose of © 
this study to investigate the problem, and to give some mathe- 
matical statement of the relation existing between intelligence and 
speed of response. 





Pettis LORICAL 


Investigations to determine the significance of rate, or speed, 
of human reactions have included three main lines of research: 
sensory and perceptual discrimination, learning and memory, and 
general intelligence. Each of these, in turn, has presented more 
specific problems. In sensory and perceptual discrimination the 
rate of presenting materials to be discriminated has been studied 
in relation to accuracy of discrimination. Learning and memory 
involve such questions as relation of rate of learning to accuracy 
of reproduction, relation of rate of learning to general capacity 
for learning, relation of rate of reproduction or recitation to 
accuracy, and relation of rate of reproduction to general capacity 
for learning. 

Finally, the problem of general intelligence has been considered 
from various angles. The relation of rate of acquisition of reac- 
tion possibilities to general intelligence is fundamental. The con- 
cept of mental age embodies the notion of a close relation between 
the two. A second angle to this question involves the question 
of rate of response to general intelligence. Here rate of response 
is independent of rate of acquisition. A closely related and very 
similar problem embraces the question of rate and comprehension 
in reading. A third angle relates to the connection between speed 
of learning and intelligence. 

In 1909 Burt (5) found the correlations between speed in 
various performances and intelligence in the case of 30 elementary 
school children. Intelligence with card sorting gave .52 + .09, 
and with alphabet sorting .61 + .08. Intelligence was estimated 
by the headmaster, who, when in doubt as to the relative position 
of two or three boys, employed as his test question, ‘‘ Which boy 
is the quickest at seeing the point of anything? ” 

For the purpose of selecting good measures of intelligence 
Wyatt, 1913,(20) gave to 34 children tests ranging from mark- 
ing the letters e-7 to interpreting fables. Wyatt used an arbi- 


4 J. A. HIGHSMITH 


trary system of penalizing errors, and obtained correlations of 
40+ .097 and 45 + .09 between e-r and a-n-o-Ss tests, 
respectively, and intelligence. 

Brown, 1910,(3) found the number of letters, e-7r and a-n- 
o-s, that 11- and 12-year-old boys and girls could mark in five 
minutes. The tests were repeated at the end of two weeks. 
General intelligence was determined from the independent rating 
of two teachers, which ratings correlated .90. 

The correlations for the measures indicated were: 


39 girls 40 boys 

r 1eley fe PIE: 
és7) (withsinteligvencé uu... oh... seie setae .00 eae .28 10 
a-n-o-s with intelligence .............. 13 ie 10 ff 
a-n-o-s with school marks............. P27, 10 BZ, 10 
@-fi with, schoolsmarks eu onm neae tees « .00 ens .30 10 
school marks with intelligence ......... .64 .09 78 .06 
Gof With (0-9-2028 wineries Re waeeacee .80 06 .82 .05 


Judd (11) arranged the results of 1,831 children in reading in 
Cleveland so as to show the relation of speed to quality. Each 
child was put in one of three groups, “rapid” or highest 25 per 
cent, “slow” or lowest 25 per cent, or ‘‘ medium” or middle 50 
per cent, according to his rate score. A similar division was 
made to include “ good,” “ medium,” and ‘ poor ”’ quality. The 
results show these children divided as follows in rate and quality: © 


Judd King 
Rapid speed and good quality.............. 10 per cent 8.6 per cent 
Medium speed and good quality............ 11 : 10.7 nt 
Slow speed and good quality............... 4 3 5.47 
Rapid speed and medium quality........... 12 fa 10.7 ¥ 
Medium speed and medium quality......... 26 ty 25.6 oT 
Slow speed and medium quality............ 12 y 14.0 
Rapid speed and poor quality.............. 4 i 5.4 - 
Medium speed and poor quality............. 12 Peaks 14.0 “ 
Slow speed and poor quality............... 9 * 5.4 > 


Judd says of these findings: ‘‘ These figures seem to emphasize 
the fact that good readers are usually not slow and poor readers 
are usually not fast. . . . For the purpose of this survey the 
general fact that high rate and good quality are commonly related, 
and that low rate and poor quality are commonly related is of 
great importance ” (11, pp. 154, 155). 

Since a contingency coefficient of only .22 by Yule’s formula 


RELATION OF RATE OF RESPONSE TO INTELLIGENCE 3 


(21, p. 65) is obtained from Dr. Judd’s data, it is not clear just 
how he arrived at such conclusions. 

In the same year King (12) published results of 93 university 
students in reading. Though his method is different from that 
used in the Cleveland survey, the results are practically identical. 
He finds a Pearson r of —.07 between rate and comprehension. 
His method probably placed the slow readers at some advantage 
over the rapid. He says: “ There are all degrees of difference 
among individuals in rate of reading. These differences are 
doubtless due to both innate and acquired factors. Some people 
react slowly; others move quickly. There is no doubt also but 
that there are varying degrees of comprehension associated with 
each differing rate of reaction, 1.e., the more slowly reacting group 
includes some who are keen to comprehend and some who are 
quite dull, with all gradations between; and the quick reactors 
also include various degrees and types, such as the keen, the dull, 
the thorough, and the superficial ” (12, p. 830). 

McCall, in 1916,(14) first raised definitely, so far as the writer 
has been able to find, the question of the probable desirability of 
“speed ”’ tests and “ power ”’ tests as measures of mental ability. 
““ By ‘ power test’ we mean,” he says, “ one that contains units 
sufficiently difficult to discover the maximal ability of the person 
or persons being measured.” Binet-Simon scale and Trabue 
completion test are cited as examples. It should be added that 
any time limit in a power test should allow opportunity for all to 
reach the limit of their abilities. 

Fighty-eight boys and girls in the grammar grades were given 
a series of speed tests by McCall: Cancellation, handwriting, 
addition, and looking up and copying addresses from a directory ; 
and a series of power tests: Thorndike’s Visual Vocabulary, 
Trabue’s Completion, Thorndike’s Reading Scale Alpha, arith- 
metic problems, and Thorndike’s Omnibus tests I A and II A. 
Teachers’ ranks and school marks, composite of all tests, and the 
average of these were used in turn as criteria of mental ability. 

As the correlations with each of the three criteria are so nearly 
the same the average will probably give the best view of the 
facts. The average correlation of each test with the three criteria 


4 J. A. HIGHSMITH 


follows: Omnibus, .80; completion, .78; teachers’ rank, .75; 
school marks, .73; reading, .67; arithmetic, .61; visual vocabu- 
lary, .60; copying addresses, .39; addition, .27; handwriting, 
12; Cancelling A’s, S’s, 2’s, and 3’s, —.03, —.06, —.23, and 
—.23, respectively; and age, —.25. The average correlation of 
the so-called “ power tests’’ from this group-is .69 and for the ~ 
“speed tests,’ .03. The average of reliability coefficients for 
these two groups is .52 for the power tests and .95 for the speed 
tests, and for school marks, teachers’ ranks, and composite, .88. 

McCall says that “some of the factors which make for high 
reliability coefficients are: that the function tested be narrow; 
that the time spent in testing be long; that the test material and 
experimental technique for the two tests be identical; and that 
there be no large variation in the conditions of the subjects.” 

“To sum up the entire discussion,” he says, “ the power tests 
give a much higher correlation with mental ability than do the 
speed tests; and this is true whether average scores or improve-— 
ment is used as the measure of the speed tests” (14, p. 52). 

Anderson presents data (1) showing the average rate of mental 
association for various groups in responding to words presented. 
Fifteen eight-year-olds averaged 2.6 seconds with quartile devia- 
tion of .8. Twenty-five ten-year-olds averaged 2.3 + .7, twelve- 
year-olds, 1.7 + .4; fourteen-year-olds, 1.6 + .6; and adults, 
1.5.3. While he thinks the type of answer given has some 
relation to intelligence, he found no correlation between speed of 
association and intelligence. , 

Terman (18) found a correlation of .535 between total words 
named in three minutes and M. A., and .52 between total words. 
named in one minute and M. A. The correlatioti of the first and 
last minute was .58. 

Terman and his students examined 818 individuals with Stan- 
ford-Binet and the Army Alpha test and found correlations which 
averaged .78, ranging from .58 to .87. The groups included 
were heterogeneous. No attempt, however, was made to eliminate 
the-ame factor (( 1ainaasz )’ 

Gates (8) studied the rate of reading in its relation to compre- 
hension of what was read, and to general intelligence. He used 


RELATION OF RATE OF RESPONSE TO INTELLIGENCE 5 


the composite of several tests in rate, comprehension, and group 
intelligence measures, and found the following correlations: 


r SelB, 
StailOuae mre With ate Mths occ. 6 ¢ «chee le mena tte vo) a ee rol .30 
Stantord avi wAacviti, Gomprehension,......ase eee ess one 34 24 
SPantard Mi. Me With ITECHONS \...: «2s acsenebancne chase « ae .20 
Group iintellizence with Ratel.. 06. 200. Fe Saw ee 64 17 
Group Intelligence with Comprehension................ .69 .10 
Group Intelligence with Directions...............0ee00: .61 AZ 
RAL Omni ILI CLIO NS ite iieverccs sis's Jessi, «ise 6'el hv seve ermal eteiataeias .79 14 
Rater wits GCOMPrENensiONi shee scids ano s's'hg en etedomiasiaet .84 .08 
Ditections with Comprehension). .00 J. eee eee ape .78 .14 


In the interpretation of these correlations it is well to keep in 
mind that the reading comprehension tests were in some cases 
timed tests. ‘These tests were those of Brown, of Courtis, of 
Monroe, of Thorndike-McCall, and the Directions test. Of these 
the Courtis, Monroe, and Directions tests are definitely timed, 
while the Brown and Thorndike-McCall allow ample time for a 
child to give evidence of what he has comprehended. We should 
expect the rate element to enter into the reading comprehension 
score to a considerable degree. The correlations tend to show 
this to be the case. 

Concerning the reading rate and comprehension correlations 
Gates says: “ The correlations with the composite of group intel- 
ligence tests is higher than with the Stanford-Binet and those are 
about as high in the lower as in the higher grades. Both of these 
facts might be explained by the greater demands of the group 
tests on reading, which are rather uniformly stable in the various 
grades, but this explanation is in no way defensible by our data” 
(8, p. 459). 

Root (16) has recently given us the results of a large number 
of correlations between group mental tests and the Stanford-Binet 
and between various group tests themselves. About 600 children 
were tested. The median of 67 grade correlations between 
Stanford-Binet and group tests is .66, P.E. .077. The median 
_ of 17 grade correlations between group tests is .765, P.E. .05. 
The correlations obtained when all children are taken together 
irrespective of grade are .80 and .88, respectively. These last 
show the influence of age upon the correlations. The National 


6 J. A. HIGHSMITH 


Intelligence test gives a median grade correlation with Binet of 
.65 with range of .49 to .79. 

Root points out that one cause of the variations between the 
Binet and group tests is probably that “the Binet is largely inde- 
pendent of the element of time; mass tests must of necessity rest 
on a time basis. We do not know to what extent different sub- 
jects are benefited in one case and injured in the other, or vice 
versa”’ (16, p. 292). 

Gates (9) shows the relation of reading ability to intelligence 
as determined by three types of intelligence measures: Stanford- 
Binet mental age, verbal group intelligence score, and non-verbal 
group intelligence score. The correlation of reading ability with 
Stanford M. A. was .49, M. D. .16; with verbal group test .71, 
M. D. .06; and with non-verbal group test .20, M. D. .07. 

We are by no means justified in saying that the difference 
between the verbal and non-verbal tests is due to the verbal 
element. The very fact of a test’s non-verbalness means that a 
different kind of task is to be performed, which, while differing 
from the verbal in respect to the verbal element, also differs in 
respect to the nature of the tasks to be performed. 

Freeman (6) cites a study in which the correlation between the 
score on the Burt reasoning test and the time required to — 
complete the test was zero. 

Freeman found the correlation between the speed, as determined 
by the order of finishing, and the quality of performance as 
measured by two tests on subject matter of class. One hundred 
fourteen, largely graduate students, were tested with a multiple- 
answer and a completion test constructed to measure content of 
mental test course. The correlation between the order of finishing 
in the two tests was .50+.05. The two tests correlated 
.55 + .047. Freeman says: ‘ Since the content of the two tests 
was in part different this indicates again a fair degree of relia- 
bility.’ The correlations between the rate of work as determined 
by the order of finishing and the quality were —.13 + .07 and 
—.12 + .07, respectively, for the two tests. So he concludes 
that, “There may be real differences in the quality of work 


RELATION OF RATE OF RESPONSE TO INTELLIGENCE 7 


of which one is capable which are independent of speed of 
performance ”’ (6, p. 88). 

Gates, 1922,(10) found an average correlation of .55 between 
Stanford M. A. and the mean of several group tests. The average 
of the correlation between M. A. and the different group tests was 
46, S. D. 15. The National Intelligence tests, forms A and B 
combined, with Stanford M. A., gave .46, .52, and .58 for grades 
four, five, and six. 

Garrison (7) obtained similar results with 158 cases in grades 
four to eight with the Otis test. The average of the correlations 
between Stanford Revision and Otis was .48, with a range of 
25 tOn. 37% 

So far as the writer has found, only two studies have been 
miade directly upon the relation of speed and quality in intelligence 
tests now in general use. 

The first of these was in connection with the standardization 
of the Army Alpha scale (15). Five hundred ten recruits were 
given the test. When time was called on a test the recruits were 
asked to draw a line to show how far they had gone. They 
were then instructed to go on with the same test, but not to go 
back of the line to correct anything, until time was again called. 
The time allowed the second part was the same as for the first. 
Each test was given in the same manner. In this way it was 
possible to determine what a person’s score was for the two time 
limits, t.e., single time and double time. The purpose of this 
comparison was to determine whether there was any marked 
change in relative position under double time as compared with 
single time. The correlation obtained between single and double 
time scores was .965. This means, of course, that there is but 
little change in relative position due to doubling the time. 

More instructive, probably, than the coefficient of correlation 
is the analysis of the data to show the per cent of individuals 
at each level of the various tests in single time who gained in 
double time. The conclusions from this analysis are given as 
follows: ‘‘ We might say, therefore, in the case of these tests, 
that they are neither principally ‘speed’ tests nor ‘ power’ tests, 
but tend to show the characteristics of a ‘ power’ test more at the 


8 J. A. HIGHSMITH 


low levels than they do at the high levels. The high frequencies 
of persons gaining at the upper levels (often 100 per cent) indi- 
cate that for the people making high scores in single time the 
‘speed’ element is predominant. In the middle and lower ranges 
the ‘power’ element is more important. Many persons do not 


gain in the additional time. It can hardly be said, however, that 


at these levels the ‘power’ factor is ever so important as is 
‘speed’ ” (15, p. 419). 

The second study directly concerned with the speed-quality 
relationship in intelligence tests was recently reported (17) by 
Ruch and Koerth. From a number of freshmen who had previ- 
ously been ranked on the basis of Thorndike’s, Morgan’s, and the 
Iowa Comprehension tests combined, were selected the lowest: and 
highest deciles, 70 in the low group and 52 in the high. These 
were given the Army Alpha Form 7 in such a manner as to reveal 
their scores for single, double, and unlimited time. A correlation 
of .966 was obtained between single and double time and .945 


between single and unlimited. This leads the writers to say 


that, ‘““The agreements between the correlation of single and 
double time with that reported in the Army figures is striking.” 
Apparently these writers have overlooked the fact that correla- 


tions are much affected by the degree of heterogeneity of the - 


subjects tested. They have obtained these correlations from highly 
selected data, i.e., from the extreme deciles of the original distribu- 


tion. In such a selection they leave out of account those deciles 


where variation is least or where differences are smallest, 7.e., 
those nearer the central tendency. A formula for evaluating a 
coefficient of correlation obtained under such conditions has not 
come to the notice of the writer. But the fallacy of the correla- 
tions presented by these writers may be shown to some degree by 
the simple process of correlating the measures for the two deciles 
separately. That is, we may take the distribution given by Ruch 
and Koerth for the low group in single and double time and on 
the basis of that find the degree of correlation existing when the 
high group is left out of account. Then we may do the same for 
the high group with the low group left out. This gives us a 
correlation of .86 between single and double time for the low 





RELATION OF RATE. OF RESPONSE TO INTELLIGENCE 9 


group and of .71 for the high groups. And instead of the one 
correlation of .945 between single and unlimited time, according 
to Ruch and Koerth, we get .76 for the low group and .65 for the 
high when each group is taken separately. 

Even the coefficients resulting from correlating the deciles 
separately are much too high, for we are dealing in such cases 
with the extremes where differences are greatest. If, for 
example, we take a probability curve of 3.0 sigma we find that 
either extreme decile extends over 1.73 sigma on the base line. 
The decile about the median, on the other hand, is limited to .25 
sigma. This means that the extreme deciles have seven times the 
range of ability that is found in the middle decile. Hence it is 
much more difficult to discriminate ability in the middle decile than 
it is in the extremes. Since errors in ranking tend to lower correla- 
tions, it is evident that the middle decile, with its greatest suscepti- 
bility to error would give the lowest correlation. That being 
true, it is evident further that the correlations based upon the 
extreme deciles taken separately would be considerably reduced 
if the deciles more susceptible to error were included. 

Evidence that an obtained correlation may be in excess of the 
representative correlation is definitely shown in another way. If, 
for example, we take all of the children of a school system without 
regard to age or grade placement and measure them with two 
intelligence tests we get a correlation out of proportion to the 
relationship which actually exists among children of the same age 
or grade. Root (16) shows correlations among a large number 
of tests worked out according to each arrangement. He found 
the average of the grade correlations between group mental tests 
and Stanford-Binet to be .66; and between various group mental 
tests themselves, .76. But when he disregards the grading the 
correlations are, respectively, .80 and .875. Garrison and Tip- 
pett (7) made a similar study of 158 children in grades four to 
eight, inclusive. They found an average grade correlation 
between the Otis Advanced Examination and Stanford-Binet of 
.48. When the five grades were thrown together in a single 
correlation table the result was a correlation of .75. 

This fact of heterogeneity is in some measure responsible, 


10 J. A. HIGHSMITH 


probably, for the high correlation, .965, found between single and 
double time in the Army. In 10 of the 13 companies used in 
the Army study no men had been segregated for the beta exam- 
ination. The scores for single time ranged from zero to 190. 

It is of considerable importance, then, to know the nature of 
the series between which the correlation is obtained. A high 
correlation in human traits means much or little, depending upon 
the homogeneity of the group from which the correlation is 
obtained. 


Summary of Historical Sketch 


1. There is a comparatively low correlation between rate of 
performing simple tasks and intelligence. The correlations range 
from .00 (Brown) to .61 (Burt). Most of these fall around 
.30 to .40 (Wyatt, Brown, McCall). 

2. There is a high correlation between rates of performing 
different simple tasks. Brown gets .80 to .82 and Gates .95. 

3. Individuals show considerable differences in rate of response 
to words presented (Anderson). | 

4. Group tests and Binet-Simon tests give correlations averag- 
ing about .55 to .65 (Root, Gates, Garrison). 

5. In all cases linguistic tests give higher correlations with 
intelligence than do non-linguistic (Gates). 

6. The Army experiment and the Ruch and Koerth study do 
not give sufficient evidence of the closeness of the relation assumed 
in timed tests between rate of response and intelligence. 


It. PROBLEM 


A survey of the literature on mental testing reveals the fact 
that while the time factor in human reactions has been worked at 
from many points of view, its relation to general capacity is by 
no means clear. Are we justified, for example, in assuming that 
the amount a person can do in a definite length of time is the best 
measure of his ultimate learning capacity? Are we yet prepared 
to say that the number of items, such as are found in group tests, 
correctly responded to in a specified time, is the best measure of 
a person’s mental capacity? Or, to put it in another way, do the 
results of studies demonstrate a sufficient uniformity in rate of 
work among people that its influence upon the measure of their 
mental power may be neglected? Is there even an approximately 
perfect correlation between profoundness or sagacity and speed? 

The purpose of this study is to investigate the relation of rate 
of response to.general intelligence. We shall attempt to give at 
least a partial answer to such questions as: To what extent is an 
individual’s rate of response constant for different kinds of mate- 
rial responded to? Does rate of response vary with material of 
different levels of difficulty, and is this difference constant for 
various individuals? To what extent is intelligence a question 
of rate of response? Can rate of response in linguistic and non- 
linguistic materials be weighted with time-limited mental tests so 
as to improve the correlation with our criterion? 

This study differs essentially from the other investigations of 
this problem in that we are employing separate measures for rate 
of response and for general intelligence, and a third measure 
combining the factors measured by the other two. Other inves- 
tigators have used only a single timed test, under different time 
limits, and, too, without attempting to isolate the rate factor. 


Ill. EXPERIMENTAL MATERIAL AND PROCEDURE 


A. Susyects. This study is based upon the responses of 87 
boys and girls of the Peabody Demonstration School to the tests 
described below. Twenty-nine were in the fifth grade, 30 in the 
sixth, and 28 in the seventh. The median age and 1.Q. were for 
fifth grade 11.0 and 109, for sixth 12.3 and 109, and for seventh 
13.0 and 112, respectively. 

The complete distributions of chronological and mental ages by 
grades are given below: 


DIsTRIBUTION OF AGES IN YEARS BY GRADES 


Grade 8 85 9 95 10 10.5 11 11.5 12 125 13 13.5 14 14.5 Total 
Bi Si) meio J avau2o Ro nat Bit ork Siti. geben meas 
NGAGE HS yee daa Bie Gas Sha), i ae re 
Tes 8 OS SE OU OE oth he a 1h a 
Total ui) Sees tiy, Wee (08 MOeds / 0S a8 ig. oa eee en 


DistriBUTION oF I. Q.’s By GRADES 


Grade 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 Total 
Slit des. wtrand tron yg. 12 ddOeedld one eeiieh- ee) Sane aaa 
Fa geht, caval Le aR 6 iano be Sik Oe 30 
TEP SIN YAAV SAN EDR TIT ON See NL) a i 28 
Polaris we TL AH LBA SE ates MG a eae 


Standardized tests are regularly administered in considerable 
numbers during the year to every grade, so that tests of the kinds 
used in this investigation are by no means.a novelty to those 
tested. Their reactions to tests are, therefore, probably more 
representative of their customary modes of doing tasks. 

B. Tests AND Test Procepure. The general plan of the inves- 
tigation was to employ three sets of measures, including one ‘set 
as nearly free from the time factor as possible, one set including 
both the time factor and difficulty, and a third set as nearly as 
possible purely speed tests. It was thought best to restrict the 
speed tests to such material as is commonly found in intelligence 
tests, so that there might be good reason for assuming that some 


RELATION OF RATE OF RESPONSE TO INTELLIGENCE 13 


of the same mental functions were employed with the three kinds 
of data. 

The tests may be considered under three heads, the criterion, 
the group mental ability tests, and the rate tests. 

A. Criterion. The criterion of intelligence used is the average 
mental age as determined by the Stanford-Binet. For three 
years, and in some cases four, the pupils used in this study have 
been tested annually by the Stanford-Binet scale, except for such 
as have been here a shorter time than that. Fifty-eight of the 87 
have had three or more Stanford-Binet tests. Twenty-four have 
had one test and five have had two. The tests were given under 
standard conditions, about half of them by Dr. S. C. Garrison 
and the other half by graduate students in psychology trained in 
administering the Stanford-Binet scale. 

It is probably safe to say that the Stanford-Binet test is as 
nearly independent of the time element as any test to be found. 
In only 17 of the 90 tests composing this scale are subjects limited 
in response time; and in practically all of these the time limits 
provide ample time for those who can do the tests. Only in one 
test, the word-naming test, is the time factor very similar to that 
in group tests.’ In none of the tests is there a premium on speed 
within the limits set. A solution of the code test, for example, 
in one minute gets no more credit than a solution in five minutes. 
We may say, therefore, that whatever else this test may measure 
it does not to any appreciable extent measure speed of response. 

B. Group Mental Ability Test. From the point of view of the 
purpose for which this test was to be used there was no basis for 
_ determining its suitability. Probably any of the better group 
tests of mental ability would have served. The National Intel- 
ligence test was, however, especially adapted to the ages we were 
employing. Form 1, scales A and B, was given and scored 
according to the standard directions furnished by the authors of 
the tests. This test was given by a trained examiner under the 
direction of Dr. Garrison. 

C. Rate Tests. The aim was to get material similar to that 
found in group tests and at the same time easy enough to present 
a minimum of difficulty to the groups of pupils we were using: 


14 J. A. HIGHSMITH 


Further, it was desirable that both linguistic and non-linguistic 
elements appear in these rate tests. 

1. Rate tests with linguistic element: To meet this require- 
ment, and another to be mentioned later, the Pressey Intermediate 
Classification test, for grades 3-6, and the Woodworth-Wells 
Easy Directions tests were selected. The Pressey test consists of 
a hundred items to be responded to by the multiple choice method. 
These hundred items were divided into three parts. The division 
and time limit for work on each were so determined that no 
individual could finish. Each part had the same time limit, 100 
seconds, and this was constant for each grade, as was the method 
of giving and scoring the tests. The Pressey directions were 
followed in the main, with such slight modifications as the above 
divisions made necessary. Each grade was tested separately as 
a group. 

The Woodworth-Wells easy directions tests are fully described 
by the authors (19). The following brief statement summarizes 
the main points: “ The conditions which it was sought to meet in 
the test material are: (1) that the motor responses should be 
very simple and quickly performed; (2) that the instructions 
should be very simple, but varied; and (3) that the instructions 
should be as concise as possible, in order that reading time might 
not be the determining factor.” 

The two sheets of this test were given at different times. Each 
sheet had a time limit of 50 seconds for the 20 items. 

2. Rate tests of non-linguistic type: The Kingsbury Primary 
Group Intelligence Scale, Form A, for grades one to four, and 
the Pressey Primary Classification, Form A, for grades one to 
two, were selected for this type of rate test. 

The Kingsbury scale presents various forms to be dealt with. 
Test 1 was omitted because it was not of the time limit kind. 
Test 2 is an “‘ opposite’ test; test 3, “completion,” and test 4, 
‘form,’ and they contain 14, 12, and 12 items, respectively, or 
a total of 38 points. <A time limit of 30 seconds was fixed for 
each test. 

The Pressey scale test 1 did not permit of timing by group 
method, so it was omitted. The remaining threé tests, all of non- 


RELATION OF RATE OF RESPONSE TO INTELLIGENCE 15 


linguistic type, were allowed 50, 50, and 30 seconds, respectively. 
This gives a total of only two minutes and ten seconds working 
time for the 75 items in the three tests. 

Each grade took all of the rate tests on one day approximately 
two months after they had taken the group test described under B. 


Vip eee 


A. RewiasiLity oF Measures. The determination of the 
reliability of the measures employed in this study differ with 
different measures. In some instances we did not have the data 
for determining the reliability by self-correlations. We have, 
therefore, treated each measure separately and by that method 
which seemed most suited to show its reliability. 


1. Reliability of the Criterion. Since there are 58 subjects 
who have been tested for three successive years, 1920, 1921, and 
1922, with the Stanford Revision of the Binet-Simon Scale, the 
scores of these subjects are taken as a basis for determining the 
reliability of the criterion. As has already been stated, the 
average mental age of each subject obtained from all the Stanford 
measures of that subject is taken as the criterion. The reliability 
of that criterion can be stated in terms of the probable error* for 
the measures for any one year from the average of all the years. 

We have used the I.Q.’s of the 58 subjects in the determination 
of the amount of deviation. The approximate constancy of the 
I.Q. makes possible comparisons between different age groups. 

We may, then, determine the reliability of the Stanford-Binet 
measures by finding the P.E. of the deviations of the measures 
for the three years. This was done for the grades separately 
and asawhole. The results are shown below as Method I. 

Since, however, we are using the average of the measures as 
a criterion, it is desirable to see just how far the measures for 
each year deviate from the average, or the criterion. This, also, 
was determined for the grades separately and as a whole. The 
results are given below as Method II. 


Grade 5 6 7 Total 
PB bya Method ae org acis set <r ons Saal 3.61 3.79 3.56 
PUB oby Methou il Lae itantecies can csi 2x26 1.97 Oe3l 2h17. 


+ All P.E.’s used in this study have been derived from §.D.’s. 


RELATION OF RATE OF RESPONSE TO INTELLIGENCE 17 


These results are slightly more consistent than the average 
of 760 retests by Terman, Garrison, Rugg, and Colloton. They 
obtained an average difference of 4.5 for the retests, while the 
above results on the same basis average 4.1. 

2. Reliability of the Measures of Speed. Since these tests were 
not repeated it is impossible to state the reliability in terms of 
self-correlation. It is possible, however, to give the correlations 
between those tests which evidently measure closely similar func- 
tions. The three divisions of the Pressey Intermediate Classifi- 
cation test, for example, show a marked degree of consistency in 
intercorrelation, in the light of the fact that the tests consumed 
only 100 seconds each. The average of the grade correlations is 
806, A. D. .058. The two halves of the Woodworth-Wells 
Directions test were allowed 50 seconds each and give an average 
grade correlation of .53, A. D. .10. 

The Pressey Primary and Kingsbury tests give average grade 
correlation of .667, A. D. .036. The times for these tests were 
130 and 90 seconds, respectively. Brown and Thompson (4) 
point out that a reliability coefficient lower than 0.6 is useless. 
The Directions tests do not meet this requirement. However, the 
two halves of the Directions test when combined give a correlation 
of .744 with the National. 

While these are not high correlations, it should be remembered 
that the time allowed was short, thus giving less time in which 
to differentiate the different degrees of ability. 

3. Reliability of the Group Test. The reliability of the 
National Intelligence test was obtained by correlating Scales A 
and B. Since the two parts measure different functions, the 
coefficient obtained is less than the true reliability. The correla- 
tions between the two forms are .75, .77, and .83 for the fifth, 
sixth, and seventh grades, respectively, the average being .78. 

It is interesting to note also that the average of the nine 
correlations between the different divisions of the Intermediate 
Classification test and the National is .756. The Intermediate 
Classification as a whole with the National gives an average grade 
correlation of .812, or correlations of .844, .803, and .79 for the 
fifth, sixth, and seventh grades, respectively. 


18 J. A. HIGHSMITH 


B. SratisticAL TREATMENT. Tables I, II, and III show the 
data upon which this study is based. At the lower end of each 
column the median and the P.E. of that column will be found. 
An examination of these medians and P.E.’s reveals differences 
which it is important to keep in mind while interpreting the various 




























































































TABLE I 
SnowinGc Firtu Grape Raw Score 
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 
Pres-| re Binet 1B Chr 

Intermediate ; i “|Kings r ue ey inet O-- 

Classification aeons $2 sey | bury — Test | AVeT- 1M. A.| nolo- 

Prim. A &B| ake . ¢ 

Cases I II Lt fe To. tl Se? Wdot uo: | 1e2h 7 Re To. | To. |Tetal] I.Q. | Mo. |Ag. 

1 2 5 2 9 4 4 8 17 32 12 44 140 95 140 
2 6 5 2 13 4 4 8 21 23 10 33 139 80 115 
3 13 9g 6 28 7 6 13 4) 33 12 45 184 }110 141 
4 io aioe We Cas HAP 16 13 46 a 9 16 62 32 1l 43 119 156 
Bh aie Cid Re Teh te & & 3 19 3 6 9 28 34 17 51 152 98 146 
(ee 19 12 13 44 3 12 19 63 33 Li 50 220 {119 151 
reer 17 13 12 42 8 8 16 58 40 25 65 245 |112 147 
8 20 17 14 51 6 9 15 66 36 17 53 240 1/101 134 
Oske 9 12 9 30 6 7 13 43 27 Me 38 199 |106 140 
LOiv 115 5 3 23 7 11 18 41 28 14 42 185 |100 132 
LHe Py th 7 7 25 5 6 11 36 31 15 46 169 |109 142 
12 {14 10 10 34 10 6 16 50 37 16 53 193 |124 156. 
BSG Oc san ears tee 10 9 6 25 4 6 10 35 35 14 49 201 'j114 154 
45: 13 5 6 24 4 6 10 34 33 19 52 190 |111 146 
DD ts 13 9 7 29 5 8 14 43 33 11 44 195 87 118 
16.. 13 9 9 31 7 6 13 44 39 18 5 202 |110 145 
vine 17 10 11 38 cf 6 13 51 29 11 40 249 {131 162 
Ee be PRA: cus sat, ARS 9 8 6 23 6 9 15 38 29 15 44 210 1105 148 
1) hee 9 7 5 21 6 6 12 33 34 14 48 203 ‘1104 132 
20.. 12 11 if 30 4 9 13 43 44 22 66 201 4108 114 
mh 13 8 9 30 4 7 11 41 41 18 59 211 108 152 
224 8 5 1 (14 4 6 1100) Joa SEONG 67 2 Ie abe ire 
23... 12 8 6 26 7 4 11 37 26 11 37 195 |128 140 
Dae tng dee ree OA 12 9 9 30 7 8 15 45 36 17 53 185 4123 156 
VLR S Pangan, AEE 1 2 0 3 3 4 7 10 35 16 51 105 {114 146 
26... 13 10 8 31 6 9 15 46 38 22 60 145 |109 151 
Py hes 8 8 9 25 4 5 9 34 ol 13 44 173 118 147 
Zh ac Sil aaah ales t via els 5 4 1 10 4 3 fi 17 27 6 33 .'}102 80 129 
OA" Eset Mee epee ate aloe 14 12 10 36 5 6 11 AT 34 16 50 201 {106 142 

Med>iinsic ce samoartcts 12/5) S04.) W238 127.0 6 1| 6.8 113.1 140.5 133.9 |15.7 |49.5 |193.7|109.5 |144.75 133.75. 

A adh avrg ak tes at La 3,09) 2.24) 2.5 7 re PVT Tae 14) 9 46h S201 (269!) Gc OF a 8.63] 8.80} 7.96) 





tables which follow. For example, it may be that the low cor- 
relation between the Stanford-Binet test and the National Intel- 
ligence test is due to the small P.E. of the intelligence of the 
group. 

The Pearson Product-Moment Method was used in all correla- 
tions. 

We have assumed linearity in the calculation of all correiations. 
All arrays have presented, by inspection, a very close approxima- 
tion to linearity. | 





RELATION OF RATE OF RESPONSE TO INTELLIGENCE 19 










































TABLE II 
j Suowine SixtH Grape Raw Scores 
1 ' 
1 2 3 4 5 6 % 8 9 10 
Intermedi Te: | genie B.-S 
ntermediate , : o- | sey ings- s=S. 5 
ic ahication Directions tal \Priin- aire Total|N.1.T. 7h B.-S.| C.A. 
ary 
Cases sf II III | To. | ‘“g” |] dot | To. | 1&2 | To. | To. | 4&5 |A&B} 1.Q. |M.A.| Mo. 
asi) 13 9 36 6 7 13 49 |43 19 62 235 91 134 |148 
Bie 22 18 68 9 18 27 95 |48 18 66 292 |125 177 —-|142 
iad. 13 12 39 7 9 16 55 134 9 48 233 97 152 |157 
ES 12 13 46 ie 15 32 78 (48 27 75 288 97 142 1/147 
D.. 17 10 43 9 11 20 63 146 19 65 269 {116 169 |146 
“Uae 13 8 40 8 9 17 57 144 15 59 192 91 124 {136 
Bas. 8 6 26 5 7 12 38 130 10 40 191 89 133 |149 
Ss. . 26 22 78 12 14 26 104 |53 23 76 336 |1384 173 |129 
eo... 22 16 64 14 14 28 92 |46 18 64 287 |136 167 |123 
HO. . 14 12 42 8 9 17 59 153 19 72 266," |112 160 |143 
a1... 5 5 23 7 9 16 39 139 17 56 215 |104 157 {151 
AZ... 16 13 47 9 10 19 66 |47 14 61 314 |135 196 |145 
3... 10 11 38 7 8 15 53 |49 25 74 283 {106 160 /151 
14... 5 v4 22 6 6 12 34 144 19 63 152 86 136 |155 
BS... 16 11 44 8 9 17 61 |41 22 63 298 {108 133 |123 
HG... 16 13 44 9 9 18 62 145 15 60 291 NES 1806 {149 
es... 9 7 31 7 9 16 47 |36 13 49 173 82 137 |167 
8... 16 13 47 8 i 15 62 |45 23 68 200 14112. 156 |139 
H9... 12 10 38 8 12 20 58 |41 14 55 242 {113 159 |141 
ZO... 8 14 33 6 8 14 47 |46 8 54 192 78 123 |158 
Bl. . 15 10 46 9 11 20 66 |43 19 62 276° |107 157 {147 
22.. 17 15) 44 8 9 Ay 61 {39 18 Arg 258 {110 171 +|156 
A 12 15 44 6 9 15 59 |41 18 59 244 99 145 |146 
2 15 14 48 8 9 17 65 |46 16 62 327 11380 183 1141 
17 14 50 13 14 27 77 =\44 19 63 255. 1115 155. |135 
9 7 30 ri 9 16 46 |46 ‘ie 63 232 81 121 |149 
BE sree wg 14 13 45 6 9 15 60 {41 15 56 289 |114 154 1/135 
16 16 52 10 14 24 76 149 24 73 289 |121 184 |152 
13 9 39 6 8 14 73 \49 15 64 190 98 118 {120 
17 15 56 14 9 23 79 = =|57 31 88 278 |110 166 {151 
“cot ee 17.5 {14.5 |11.5 |44.4 | 8.43) 9.67]17.33/60.66/45.5 |18.5 |62.9 |264.7/110.0 |157 |145.4 
lo _...-| 3.0 | 3.13) 2.48] 1.75) 1.87) 1.87) 3.45)11.1 | 3.52) 3.38] 6.25] 30.5) 9.17) 13.5] 6.85 














The absence of correlation between Stanford-Binet and the 
National Intelligence test in fifth grade is probably due in part, as 
has been said, to the homogeneity of the group and in part to the 
presence of certain special reading difficulties in this grade. The 
writer has worked with this group in an attempt to diagnose cases 
of reading difficulty. The most pronounced case is that of number 
25. This subject was unable to read a second reader acceptably 
though his I.Q.’s as determined by four yearly Stanford-Binet 
measures were 114, 113, 117, and 111 for the respective years. 
Other cases less marked are numbers 22 and 28. 

It is not surprising that the highest correlations are between 
tests that involve the language factor. And between tests involv- 
sing such language factors and those which do not, the coefficients 
do not equal four times their P.E. 





20 J. A. HIGHSMITH 











St SER TIL alata iat: 


TABLE III 
SHOWING SEVENTH GRADE RAw SCORES 
1 2 3 4 5 6 vi 8 
_ rid pe At B.S 
Intermediate : c o- | sey ings- a- _: 
Classification er tal |Prim-| bury Total tional} Aver- MEA 
ary age 
Cases I II TIT! | Ton] es) dot) Tos t&2)| “Ta: 4&5 |Total| 1.Q. | Mo. 
dE eee ea eee IE 16 12 9 37 8 9 17 54 138 25 63 245 7105 158 
De ee StS aH 22 17 15 54 12 i 24 785 Mae, 14 51 3385 1140 219 
3 24 19 13 56 11 15 26 82 146 25 71 273 |140 217 
4 28 22 20 70 13 15 28 9& {45 217 166 316 {116 176 
Dad he Oe EUS Tae 16 12 12 40 8 9 17 67 132 20 §2 228 99 150 
6 18 15 12 45 8 11 19 64 1/38 iby 53 298 |132 181 
Tin eae. Ree ee ee 27 19 18 64 14 nig 25 89 {48 18 66 303 116 175 
S.nss. Se des ee 2h 16 17 54 11 14 25 79 46 26 72 309 117 183 
O Lae: elt oe ee 16 16 10 42 6 It Lig 59 =|41 22 63 247 |101 167 
1O:S3 Pee 16 12 9 37 5 8 13 50 {33 19 52 274 {113 184 
11, 4a Sr ae ee 17 9 8 34 7p 9 16 ; 60. 137 aia 48 2240 ails 177 i 
12 es hek RO Oa 14 10 8 32 6 7 13 145 |21 12 33 257 $115 178 A 
13 19 18 14 51 10 9 i9 70 {41 22 63 273 1104 174 Ww 
14 ee ic Beals aloe 13 15 12 40 9 11 20 60 |44 19 63 282 |111- 165 
15 16 12 14 42 a 9 20 62 {28 18 46 296 {i160 226 
16 SA yes Gee 17 12 12 41 9 ff 16 57 |54 28 82 282 3118 170 
17, SAaAKo Seietee eeuae 18 18 16 52 12 11 123 75 \49 23 72 303 {101 138 
18 16 12 12 AQ 8 11 19 59. 52 23 75 245 {103 161 
19. S:iesas 4 igsavereckexcee he vik 19 17 57 14 12 26 83 |47 21 68 337 = |113 191 
20 20 15 14 49 9 11 20 69 |48 28 76 296 |104 175 
i 


























DT 5 rane Soka ese 20 14 10 44 5 12 17 61 |49 26 75 255 95 161 

PTT a a Sin eh 3 24 21 14 59 13 13 26 85 |42 26 68 290 {121 214 

23. Bicashe green aystecal| Lae 20 13 50 10 9 19 69 {39 20 59 287 |102 160 

2A ea eee mies tise Wee 28 25 19 72 16 15 31 103 |43 20 63 371 {109 177 

25 25 22 16 63 14 18 32 95 |43 27 70 822° {115 171 | 
26 i8 15 12 45 8 11 19 64 42 20 62 246 |107 162 | 
27 22 18 16 56 12 14 26 82 |50 25 75 288 |107 162 uy 
28 25 22 14 61 14 12 26 87 |46 29 75 312 |114 175 a 
Med aaa iiate a6 sche 19.0 |16.5 [14.0 |50.0 |10.5 |11.6 |20.3 | 68.5]/43.5 |22.0 |65.0 |287.5)113.3 |175.7|154 
BiB psiian ue tists oad: 2.82 2.72| 2.24) 7.12] 2.02) 1.72] 3.39) 10.5) 4.84] 3,17 ee 23.4) 9.34) 1 








Turning to the correlation table (Table 1V), we find that the 
only significant coefficients are those between tests involving lan- 
guage factors. It is evident also from the partial and multiple 
correlations that the relation between the National Intelligence 
test and the Linguistic Rate tests is independent of factors meas- 
ured by the Stanford-Binet tests. 724==.80, and when the 
Stanford-Binet measures are combined in the best way with the 
Linguistic Rate tests the coefficient is not materially changed. 
Tangs ee be 05! 

The fact that most of the correlation coefficients fail to meet 
the requirement for significance of four times their P.E. limits 
us considerably in possible deductions. However, we are still no 
doubt safe in challenging as a safe measure of intelligence in the 
lower grades an instrument involving a large linguistic element 
and which depends upon scores made under time limits. For we 


3 
q 


aad 


utes. 





= 





RELATION OF RATE OF RESPONSE TO INTELLIGENCE 21 


TABLE IV 


SHowinc Tora, ParTriaL, AND MULTIPLE CORRELATIONS, AND PROBABLE Errors AMONG 
Various Factors! For THE FirtTH GRADE 





12 08+.12 | 13 324.11 | 14 .18+.12 | 23 at Wits ing Ie 
t243 0384.13 | 13.2 gla:.17 | 14.2 5206 125). 231 wh Oicte Le 
12.4 = Ol seb) 18.4 28 +.12 | 14.3 11.12 | 23.4 =.06--.13 
12.34 .08+.13 | 13.24 28 t.12 | 14.23 L512), 23.14 an Ait sh 
24 80+.04 | 34 262.11) 1.23 .82+.11 | 2.13 pLSiets ba 
24.1 80+.05 | 34.1 2b aby LQ y He Ie 214.12 | 2.14 81.04 
24.3 80+.05 ! 34.2 204.12 | 1.34 .383+.10 | 2.34 .81+.04 
24.13 80+.05 | 34.12 154.12 | 1.234 8524.16 | 2.134 .81+.04 








1 The factors correlated are designated by numbers as follows: 
1. Criterion. Stanford-Binet tests. 
2. National Intelligence test. 
8. Non-linguistic rate tests. Pressey Primary and Kingsbury combined. 
4, Linguistic rate tests. Intermediate Classification and Directions combined. 
cannot overlook the fact that the non-time-limit Stanford-Binet 
does not correlate significantly with any timed test, while there 
is a high correlation between timed tests with the linguistic 
element. 
It is impossible to say to what extent the low. correlations in this 
grade are due to the narrow range of I[.Q.’s. Below are given 
the probable errors of the distribution of the National raw scores, 


of the average I.Q.’s, and of the Mental Ages for the three grades. 


PROBABLE Error oF DISTRIBUTION 


Grade National Aye tsQ): M.A. 
RC Sete hte frets rey hee diate tee 24.75 8.80 8.80 
(Oe ois) ag 1d cece iol GRE BOLO EEE Sc Totes Aer sia Tce 30.50 9.17 13.50 
RT Rae oe RSE eye rrihee MU] Laivhay'e Colao oc « 23.40 9.34 13.80 


Especially in mental age distribution the fifth grade is much 
narrower than the others. The lower P.E. for the National in 
the seventh grade is no doubt due in part to the restriction in 
amount of scores imposed by the limits of the tests. 

It is a fact, further, that the non-linguistic rate test does not 
contribute to the correlation of the National with the Stanford, 
since v2.14 == .81 and 72.134 = .81. 

Table V shows the correlations from the sixth grade data. 
All coefficients of the zero order except one (713) meet the require- 
ments for significance of four times the P.E. 

The influence of the rate factor is shown clearly in the multiple 
correlations. The correlations of all the factors measured by the 
Stanford-Binet with all the factors measured by the National 


22 J. A, HIGHSMITH 


Intelligence test is .76. The same coefficient is obtained for the 
National Intelligence test with the Linguistic Rate tests. The 
partial correlations, however, show that each of these three tests 
possesses different factors or the same factors in different degrees. 
Since 7ve14==.87 and 72.134 == .88, it is evident that the non-: 
linguistic rate test does not influence materially the correlation 


TABLE V 


SHowine Torar,. PARTIAL, AND MULTIPLE CORRELATIONS AND PROBABLE ERRORS AMONG 
Various Factors! For THE SIXTH GRADE 





12.3 73+.06 | 13.2 15+.12 | 14.2 12+.12 | 23.1 47 +10 
12.4 65+.07 | 13.4 05+.13 |} 14.3 44+.10 | 23.4 21+.12 
12.34 -65+.07 | 13.24 —.12+4.12 | 14.23 —.06+.13 | 24.14 23 +.12 
24 76+.05 | 34 56+.09 | 1.23 CEES Ads: 82+.04 
24.1 65+.07 | 34.1 48+.09 | 1.24 76.05 | 2.14 87 +.03 
24.3 65+.07 | 34.2 274.12 | 1.34 53+.09 | 2.34 77+.05 
24.13 534.09 | 34.12 13+.12 | 1.234 77+.05 | 2.134 88 +.03 


1 See note under Table IV. 


between the Stanford and the National. The significant factors. 
in producing the correlations shown are contained in the criterion, 
the National, and the linguistic rate tests. 

The correlations 71.24 == .76 and riz==.76 show that the lin- 
guistic rate tests do not contribute to the National any factor not 
already contained in the latter so far as its correlation with the ~ 
criterion is concerned. The correlation r2s shows further that the 
National and the linguistic rate tests have much in common. The 
factors, then, that are measured by the linguistic rate tests are 
also measured fully by the National. 

The question as to whether the National and the linguistic rate 
tests emphasize factors not contained in the criterion leads us to 
consider the effect of combining the rate tests with the Stanford 
for the highest correlation with the National.  riz.4 == .65 + .07 
is an indication of the closeness of the relation between the 
Stanford-Binet and the National when factors measured by the 
linguistic rate test are held constant. Now 7r2.11==.87, while 
ri2==.76. That is, when we correlate the National with the best 
weighting of the Stanford-Binet and the linguistic rate tests 
combined we get a coefficient which shows the degree to which 
the National contains the rate factor independently of any signifi- 


RELATION OF RATE OF RESPONSE TO INTELLIGENCE 23 


cance for intelligence. The lowering of the coefficient by 
eliminating rate, ri2.4==.65, indicates that rate is a factor in 
intelligence as contained in our criterion; while 72.14 == .87 shows 
that we must add rate elements to the Stanford-Binet to offset 
the excess in the National. 

The seventh grade (Table VI) presents a somewhat different 
situation from either of the other two with reference to our 


TABLE VI 


SuHow1nG ToTat, ParTIAL, AND MULTIPLE CORRELATIONS AND PROBABLE ERRORS AMONG 
Various Factors? FoR THE SEVENTH GRADE 





| 





12 34.11 | 13 —,2on. 12 | 14 .22+.12 | 23 18.12 
12.3 40+.10 | 13.2 en line Dare ES —,09+.13 | 23.1 .26+.12 
12.4 28+.12 | 13.4 —.00 1k | 1413 ,of sb) BD 2334 =, oa) 
12,34 18+.12 | 13.24 —.31+.11 | 14.23 .0O84-.13 | 23.14 24.12 
24 .80+.04 | 34 .44+.10 | 1.23 .45+.10 | 2.13 -41+.10 
24.1 .79+.05 | 34.1 .62+.09 | 1.24 344.11 | 2.14 824.04 
24.4% .82+.04 | 34.2 .50+.09 | 1.34 .43+.10 | 2.34 824.04 
24.13 79+ .05 | 34.12 .52+.09 | 1.234 .46+.10 | 2,134 5324.04 





1 See note under Table IV. 


problem. The extent to which differences in reading rate and 
practice in taking tests have entered into these group differences 
and also into the differences between results from these groups 
and the results from groups measured by other investigators, is 
beyond the scope of this study. 

The results here agree with those of the other two groups in 
showing that the non-linguistic rate factor plays but little part 
in the correlations we are considering. They also agree with the 
results in the other groups in showing a marked correlation 
between the linguistic rate tests and the National. 

There is a striking absence of significant correlations between 
the Stanford-Binet and any of the other measures. The correla- 
tion of .80 between the National and the linguistic rate is raised 
to only .83 when the best weighting of the two rate factors is 
combined with the Stanford-Binet. This fact indicates that the 
National Intelligence test is a much better measure of such rate 
factors as are measured by our rate tests than it is of the factors 
measured by the Stanford-Binet. 

So far we have observed the influence of the rate factor in the 
grades separately. We have, also, observed that the different 


24 } J. A. HIGHSMITH 


grades show different degrees of relationship when the same pair 
of traits is considered. In other words, the results from the 
three grades are not in absolute agreement in many cases as to the 











TABLE VII 
SHow1InGc AVERAGE GRADE CORRELATIONS, PARTIAL AND MULTIPLE CORRELATIONS, AND 
AverAGE DEVIATIONS AMONG THE Various Factors! For THE THREE GROUPS 
12 39.24 | 13 14 .25 | 14 31 12 | 23 .30 16 
12.3 39.24 | 13.2 05 .24 | 14.2 14 1) } 23.1 .29 til 
12.4 31 .23 | 18.4 —.03 .24 | 14.3 SLES LO i 2a04 —.06 18 
12.34 29 1.24 | 13.24 —.05 .28 | 14.23 06 .08 | 23.14 12 15 
24 79. .01 } 34 42 .10 | 1.23 51 18 | 2.13 47 .20 
24.1 75 =.06 | 34.1 -49 13 | 1.24 .43 21! 2.14 83.02 
24.3 76 .07 | 34.2 32, htl2 jel ot .43 .07 | 2.34 80 .02 
24.13 71 = .12 | 34.12 ey ieee Wee eae .53 16 | 2.134 84 .03 





1 See note under Table IV. 


degree of relationship existing among the various measures. It 
is necessary, therefore, that we combine the results from these 
grades if we are to know what general tendency is representd 
in our results. 


Two methods have been employed in bringing together the 


results from the three tables of correlations already discussed. 
Table VII shows the average of the grade correlations shown in 
Tables IV, V, and VI. This table shows the mean tendency in 
the relationships of the various factors. 
correlations obtained when we throw together the scores of the 87 


TABLE VIII 


Suowine Torar, PartiaL, AND MuttTipte CoRRELATIONS AMONG Various Factors! FoR 
ALL GRADES COMBINED 


12 . 64 13 .33 14 56 23 .57 
12.3 .58 13.2 .05 14.2 .02 23.1 .49 
12.4 .35 13.4 .02 14.3 47 23.4 .07 
12.34 .35 13.24 .00 14.23 .00 -* 23.14 -O1 
24 .88 34 . 62 1.23 . 64 2.13 74 
24.1 . 82 34.1 .55 1.24 . 64 2.14 .90 
24.3 83 34,2 129 1.34 .56 2.34 .89 
24.13 nae 34.12 .30 1.234 64 2.134 .90 





1 See note under Table IV. 


subjects for each test and correlate them as a whole. There are 
certain advantages peculiar to each method which will be discussed 
in connection with the two tables. 

Before entering into a discussion of the meaning of the correla- 
tions in these two tables, however, some justification should be 


Table VIII presents the - 


RELATION OF RATE OF RESPONSE TO INTELLIGENCE 2 


given for omitting the age factor from the partial and multiple 
correlations. There are two reasons for the omission. In the 
first place, the three groups dealt with here represent highly 
selected cases in which age correlates from very low to negatively 
with the other factors. There is a tendency for the younger 
children in each grade to have the higher mental ages, whereas in 
unselected cases there would be a substantial positive correlation 
between chronological age and mental age. If, then, we include 
the age factor, influenced as it is by selection, in our partial and 
multiple correlations, we are including a factor whose obtained 
correlation with the other factors cannot be the true correlation. 
In the case of the National Intelligence test and chronological age, 
for example, we find grade correlations of —.23, —.33, and —.06 
for the fifth, sixth, and seventh grades, respectively. When, 
however, the three grades are thrown into a single table the 
correlation is .28. 

In the second place, we are concerned here chiefly with the 
question of the relative significance of speed of work in the 
measurement of intelligence by means of timed and non-timed 
tests. If, then, the omission of the age factor should introduce 
a constant error its influence would be chiefly to change the 
absolute amounts of the correlations rather than the relative 
amounts. The correlation between the coefficients in Tables VII 
and VIII is .95. 

Our next problem is to study the implications of the combined 
correlations in order to see what they may contribute to the 
solution of our problem. We shall confine the discussion chiefly 
to the implications of the multiple correlations resulting (1) when 
the criterion is correlated with the best combination of the other 
factors, and (2) when the National is correlated with the best 
combination of the other factors; that is, v1.23--n and f2.13--n. 
‘We shall present also the correlations from both Tables VII and 
VIII, so that in connection with the discussion of any point the 
relative changes in the correlation resulting from the inclusion or 
exclusion of the various factors may be observed in both tables. 
It should be kept in mind that Table VII represents the averages 


26 J. A. HIGHSMITH 


of the grade correlations, while Table VIII gives the correlations 
when the 87 cases are thrown together in the several tests, but 
without any attempt to control the age factor. 

Whenever there is a discrepancy between the correlations in 
the two tables we shall assume that the difference in either case 
is unreliable. We have also determined the limits within which 
differences do not equal or exceed four times their probable error. 
By obtaining the probable error of the difference between coeffi- 
cients, we find that with a correlation of .30 a difference of .04 is 
significant and that with a correlation of .80 a difference of .01 is 
significant. It is also true that correlations of .30 and above are 
four times their probable error in these tables. 

It is evident from this table that the linguistic rate test does not 
measure any factor involved in the criterion which is not measured 
by the National Intelligence test or the non-linguistic rate tests. 
This is shown when we combine the different factors by multiple 
correlation so as to get the highest correlation with the criterion. 

Table VII Table VIII 


1.23 = cot 64 
11 .234= pos .64 


From this it is seen that practically nothing is contributed by 
the linguistic rate factor. A correlation of .51 is raised to only 
.53 by including the linguistic rate factor. 

That the rate factors, especially the non-linguistic, contribute 
something to the National as a measure of intelligence is shown 
by the following correlations: 


Table VII Table VIII 


12 = 39 64 
1.23 = a 64 
1.34 = 43 .56 
11.234 = 93 64 


Observe first that a correlation of .39 between the criterion and 
National is raised to .53 when the two rate factors are combined 
with the latter. Again, it is notable, in this connection, that the 
two rate factors when combined correlate with the criterion 
slightly in excess of the coefficient obtained between the National 
and the criterion. 

Next, let us analyze the results when the criterion is combined 


RELATION OF RATE OF RESPONSE TO INTELLIGENCE 27 


with the two rate factors to give the highest correlation with the 
National Intelligence test. If we examine the correlations below 
we find that the rate tests and the National Intelligence test 
measure factors largely independent of those measured by our 


criterion. 
Table VII Table VIII 


24 = 79 .88 
124.1= Vk, .82 


When we keep constant the factors measured by the criterion 
which may be present also in both the National and the rate tests, 
we find that the correlation resulting is reduced but slightly. 
And if we combine the criterion with the rate tests for the best 
correlation with the National the coefficient is but slightly higher 
than the total correlation between the National and the rate tests. 


Table VII Table VIII 


24 = 79 .88 
2.14= .83 -90 


These facts seem to justify the conclusion that the factors 
measured by the rate tests and by the National Intelligence test 
are to a very large extent identical. 

To what extent are these factors also identical with factors in 
our criterion? 

The following correlations show the relation between the 
criterion and the National and between the criterion and the rate 


tests, respectively : 
Table VII Table VIII 


12 = .39 64 
11.34 43 .56 


These probably mean that there is not a reliable difference 
between the two correlations. This is but another way of saying 
that the rate tests and the National maintain about the same 
degree of relation with the criterion. 

If we take the two correlations, 


Table VII Table VIII 


12.34 = .80 .89 
72.134 84 90 


it is evident that the criterion may be left out with but little loss 
in the degree of relationship. But if we compare the following 
correlations, 


28 J. A. HIGHSMITH 


Table VII Table VIII 


1.34 = 43 .56 
11 .234—= Jo 64 


we find that the National does contribute slightly factors which 
are not included in the rate tests. The correlations, 


Table VII Table VIII 


11.34 43 .56 
12.34 .80 .89 


show the degree of correlation of the criterion and of the National 
Intelligence test, respectively, with the rate tests combined. 

The implications of these correlations are, first, that the cri- 
terion is a relatively poor measure of rate of response ; second, that 
the National Intelligence test is a relatively good measure of rate 
of response; and third, that the National is a better measure of 
what is measured by the rate tests than it is of what is measured 
by the criterion. 

It was hoped that by using as rate measures tests of slightly 


different difficulty we might get data for studying the relation 


TABLE IX 

SHowinc THE Meprans, DIFFERENCES OF MEDIANS, AND P.E. or DIFFERENCES FOR THE 
Various Grapes AND Dirricuttiges. I, II, anp III stanp For THE 

THREE DEGREES OF DIFFICULTY FROM EASY TO MOST DIFFICULT _ 














Medians I and II II and Ill 
Grades ——_ | | 
I II III | Difference |P.E. of Dif.| Dif. |P.E. of Dif. 
Bass Heys a Soo ena 12.5 &.4 eee 4.1 744 heh 653 
eh, Vis Aedes ent ae e geeee eae b Wy fees oe WSs 9 i Ne 3.0 815 3.0 . 749 
AR er LaAE Ae Orch oR oder oels 19.0 } 16.5 | 14.0 2.5 776 2.5 . 698 
Médinnt 7205) a etean 16.0 | 13.4 | 13.2 2.6 617 2.2 539 











_. ) The medians, differences, and P.E. of differences in the last row are determined from 
distributions of all the scores in each of the three degrees of difficulty. 


of rates at different degrees of difficulty to intelligence, and 
at the same time not seriously interfere with the original require- 
ment for a rate test. It seems, however, that the slight differ- 
ences in degrees of difficulty and the very small amount of time 
given to each different degree have operated to make the correla- 
tions somewhat inconsistent in some places. We are, neverthe- 
less, presenting the results and indicating some of the implications 
which seem to be most justifiable. 

Table IX is presented especially to show the amount and 
significance of the differences between the different degrees of 


RELATION OF RATE OF RESPONSE TO INTELLIGENCE 29 


difficulty of the rate tests. Greater degrees of difference in 
difficulty between these tests would have brought out better the 
influence of the difficulty factor. 

Two questions will be considered in connection with these 
measures of rate at different degrees of difficulty. We wish to 


TABLE X 


SHOWING THE AVERAGE OF THE TOTAL, PARTIAL, AND MULTIPLE CORRELATIONS AND 
AVERAGE DEVIATIONS AMONG Various Factors? 


12 ==, 59) (24 12 == )j100 » get 12 aes OOM Vee 
13 == ole 40 14 Se Oe Le 15 Ey ane oes 
23 === 7 ay OD 24 an OL) LD 25 aa 19) OF 
12.3" °==(267) 925 laski Hs) lose et 12.57 == 01 | 740 
13.2 e=—.06 an uLO 14,2 =—.07  .12 NGO tee 0 NE be 
133420 =.17'')/09 14534 == 0T 19 163) =e LOY Sy, 
13.5) \===06., 3138 to. == 05, ..08 LB 4) = 24 oy 
toe One Oe SOS Me a OOS AS, Li ==.80)) 207 
34.5 ==.36  .26 35.4 == .44 .09 AG Shee ole eek 
2071 pe Ot ehO ee A see Ch OO Sha) ==) 7450: 20 
23.4745 isl Me24 f= A220 TL. 2b) == 60" 214 
oak =au79 03 2014 Su 817, 08 2, £6 )=783'97. 01 
Dele Gish. se A Aa 6003 §.12° =="80, .03 
1.345 —.44 11 3.145 == } 86). 701 4.1385 =.87 .02 
; = .87 .06 


1 The factors correlated are designated by numbers as follows: 


1. Criterion. Stanford-Binet Tests. 

2. National Intelligence Test. 

3. Linguistic rate test of least degree of difficulty, I. 

4. Linguistic rate test of slightly greater degree of difficulty, IT. 
5. Linguistic rate test of greatest degree of difficulty, ITI. 


consider the influence of the different degrees of difficulty upon 
the correlations of rate, (1) with the National, and (2) with the 
criterion. It should first be pointed out, however, that the corre- 
lation of the rate tests and the National with each other give much 
more consistent correlations for the three grades than does either 
with the criterion. This is shown clearly by the average 
deviations in Table X. 

The following average coefficients from Table X show that the 
slight difficulty differences in the rate tests are concerned in the 
correlation: 

123 = 72 124 = .76 125 = .79 


This comparison is offered with the reservation that the pos- 
sible effect of practice upon the correlations in the cases of the 
second and third degrees of difficulty has not been determined. 
These correlations were obtained from the following total 
correlations : 


30 J. A. HIGHSMITH 


Grade 123 124 125 
5 793 be) 82 
6 654 ere 76 
7 723 778 786 


In only one case, 724 == .77 in the fifth grade, is there a failure 
of the correlation between the National and the rate tests to 
increase with the increase difficulty of the rate test. This excep- 
tion is no doubt due in part to the narrower range of ability in 
the fifth grade already pointed out. 

The fact that this relationship is independent of those factors 
in the National Intelligence test and in the rate tests which are 
common to the criterion is shown by the partial correlations, 


123.1== .67 r24.1=.71 125.1== .74 


This indicates again that the National is primarily a rate test 
of the linguistic type. It also indicates that a single short rate 
test gives a very good measure of this rate factor. 

What is the relation of the rate factor to the criterion? In 
general, the answer is that the relation is small. The total cor- 
relations between the criterion and the rate tests of different 
degrees of difficulty show a low coefficient, .30, A. D. .028. 

The correlation of the National with the criterion is only 
slightly improved by combining in the best weighting the National 
with the rate tests of different degrees of difficulty. In fact, this 
secures coefficients only slightly higher than are obtained between 
the criterion and the rate tests of the three degrees of difficulty, 
leaving the National out. The correlations for these are: 


11.23 == .45 r1.24== .42 r1.25 = .50 r1.345—= .44 


It should be kept in mind, too, that factors 3, 4, and 5 were 
measured in 100 seconds each, or a total of five minutes working 
time. This correlation between rates and criterion is somewhat 
better than is obtained by the National and the criterion, 7.e., 
ee oo. 


V. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 


A. Procepure. In this study of the relation of rate of 
response to intelligence two essential features should be noted: 

1. The Tests. Three sets of tests were employed: (a) The 
criterion is the average of I.Q.’s obtained from yearly tests with 
Stanford-Binet for periods of from one to four years. (b) The 
scores from National Intelligence tests A and B are taken as a 
measure of factors present in the criterion as well as of possible 
factors which might be independent of the criterion. (c) Lin- 
guistic and non-linguistic rate tests were employed to measure 
the possible factors in the National Intelligence test which might 
be independent of the criterion. These tests provided the basis 
for studying the rate factor with and without the linguistic ele- 
ment. One of two linguistic rate tests was composed of three 
parts differing slightly in difficulty, so as to provide the basis for 
studying influence of rate at different levels of difficulty upon 
intelligence measurements. 

The reliability of the tests was determined in each instance. 
A fairly high degree of reliability (about .80) was found where 
the self-correlation method was applicable. The only tests for 
which a high degree of reliability could not be shown were the 
non-linguistic rate tests. These gave a correlation of .67 between 
tests of somewhat different material. 

2. Method of Treatment. The correlation method was em- 
ployed throughout. Pearson’s product-moments method was 
employed in the zero-order correlations. The formulae as given 
by Yule were used in the partial and multiple correlations. The 
reliability of individual coefficients is given, as is also the reliability 
of the difference between coefficients where differences are 
important. 

The data from the three groups of subjects were treated first 
without disturbing these groupings. The averages of the various 
correlations, as well as the original coefficients, were tabulated. 


32 J. A. HIGHSMITH 


The data for the three groups were then thrown together and 
treated as a single array. 

The results are analyzed for two purposes. The data were 
studied, first, for the purpose of finding out how important the 
rate of response factor was in the measurement of intelligence; 
and second, for the purpose of finding what relation existed 
between rates based on material of different degrees of difficulty 
and intelligence. 

B. CONCLUSIONS: 

1. The results of this investigation indicate decidedly that the 
rate of response to test material is by no means a safe measure 
of intelligence. 

2. They indicate, also, that the National Intelligence test is a 
much better measure of rate of response than it is of intelligence. 

3. The simple linguistic rate tests used in this study are about 
as good a measure of intelligence as is the National Intelligence 
test. 

4. Rate in linguistic material can be measured much more con- 
sistently by a short test than rate in non-linguistic material. 

5. The non-linguistic rate tests, when added to the National, 
contribute slightly more to the correlations with the criterion than 
does the linguistic rate. , 

6. The high correlation between rate tests and the National 
Intelligence test points to a danger in employing the composite 
of group tests as a criterion by which the validity of a new group 
test is tested. It may be that this process is increasing the 
importance of the rate element in group tests at the expense of 
factors more significant of general intelligence. 


10. 


11. 


RELATION OF RATE OF RESPONSE TO INTELLIGENCE 33 
BIBLIOGRAPHY 


. AnpEersoN, M. An Investigation Into the Rate of Mental Association. 


Jour. Educ. Psychol., 1917, 8, 97 f€. 


. Binet, A., & Simon, TH. Methods nouvelles pour le diagnostic du niveau 


intellectuel des anormaux. L’Annee Psychologique, 1905, 11, 191 ff. 


. Brown, Wm. Some Experimental Results in the Correlation of Mental 


Activities. Brit. Jour. Psychol., 1910, 3, 296 ff. 


. Brown, Won., & THompson, Goprrey H. Essentials of Mental Measure- 


ment, 1920. 


. Burt, C. Experimental Tests of General Intelligence. Brit. Jour. Psychol., 


1909, 3, 94 ff. 


. FREEMAN, F. N. Notes on the Relation Between Speed and Accuracy or 


Quality of Work. Jour. Educ. Research, 1923, 7, 87 ff. 


. Garrison, S. C., & Tippett, J. S. Comparison of the Binet-Simon and 


Otis Tests. Jour. Educ. Research, 1922, 6, 42 ff. 


. Gates, A. I. An Experimental and Statistical Study of Reading and 


Reading Tests. Jour. Educ. Psychol., 1921, 12, 303 ff., 378 ff., 445 ff. 


. Gates, A. I. A Study of Reading and Spelling with Special Reference to 


Disability. Jour. Educ. Research, 1922, 6, 12 ff. 

Gates, A. I. The Correlations of Achievement in School Subjects with 
Intelligence Tests and Other Variables. Jour. Educ. Psychol., 1922, 
139129 ff: 

Jupp, C. H. Measuring the Work of the Public Schools, 1916. 


lla. Ketiey, T. L. Statistical Method, 1923. 


in 
13, 
14. 
a3: 
16. 
17. 
18. 
19. 
20. 
21. 


Kino, I. A Comparison of Slow and Rapid Readers. School and Society, 
1916, 4, 830 ff. 

KUHLMANN, F. A Handbook of Mental Tests, 1922. 

McCatt, W. A. Correlation of Some Psychological and Educational 
Measurements. Teachers College Contribution to Education, 1916, 
No. 79. 

Psychological Examination in the United States Army. National Academy 
of Science, Memoirs, 1921, 15. 

Root, W. T. Correlations Between Binet Tests and Group Tests. Jour. 
Educ. Psychol., 1922, 13, 286 ff. 

Rucu, G. M., & Koertno, W. “Power” vs. “Speed” in Army Alpha. 
Jour. Educ. Psychol., 1923, 14, 193 ff. 

TERMAN, Lewis M. Some Data on the Binet Test of Naming Words. 
Jour. Educ. Psychol., 1919, 10, 29 ff. 

WoopwortH, R. S., & We tts, F. L. Association Tests. Psychol. Monog., 
1911, No. 57. 

Wyatt, STanteEy. The Quantitative Investigation of Higher Mental 
Processes. Brit. Jour. Psychol., 1913, 6, 109 f€. 

Yute, G. U. An Introduction to the Theory of Statistics, 1922. 










4 
i ‘ 







y Senet: ie ea ibs ) 


z Ore iT sahictl ey " Tet, ri sb hindi DD he 


he , 
m " ena yy 


AL 
Iw Mei Hi} eg 




















REAR Chat ik Yi hep un BAN natant alge | Ais 
ss Radic AE Sabai at? ‘ak ETRE any ot fi we Pe Sa 
‘ ¥ ‘ ua he 2 ae a5 nese , kana ahs i ph 
a } ae st wey a anita Nae fe 





. 
¥ pore 
hat r oa) & ho, aan 
ei “tr ied Chg APS 4 Per iyi! 444) 4 tay Si t yo Ieee 


+ 


1a, me . ae 










Madd 


my ce A eet Ti ae Ay an wAawinsss ihe Chashinse Ne ewe “ 
; uf Ra NGS oth AAS Pak (see bx 

























i? ee dea us, ‘ ie Ti a] hms , a 
iy ait Bd SRE ae mcd 
} R + P Py 
q ' M ~ ary * 
ee vi , te By : 
7 i , a v ed : 4A 
: ‘ ae hee ays | Pratt . Ta Ay eta Bue t: ee) Ac 
Pye t > ia) TY ‘set 
| 4 ry) POOR Se: Batt) AD sh) we Mer 
ome f ; hae WP A Joan ae ; ; 
. re sire paev ie, SOT) TN f 1a ay ehh: Oe: ane 
* qT? : \ ty OR Ee mAY qicfet® Low deleliy' i yA Ka¥%s / aye 
; at A pene Rak cn A itl ‘ ‘ae 
’ fee aes pat by . We Pi aie A 
: a> in Aye fi 4, ek ; Ag oy 
‘. fre d ry iy te ola Ne ig Bia i 
f ' i : : sn 7 7 peat 
di ' 4 ae | avi || seuiy ee. 9 tle Le Vib ore ot basa Ate 
bd et as hs Ae Gy, ts LY | ‘ } - } 
f ’ ‘ ; ‘new RAT eg al bet re (Hs 7 1 wt pn A sites oe a Phi 
hs it We bel ck : a co eae t ay Pa 
ta : % ': “ rr Poet ror i 
i i i , A ri a 2” tee OF, ya Li co 
ms & ; io ; ‘on he 
4 Lecnd are Y <u 
‘ y 
‘ 1 \ P ss 
¥ Ay 
A} ri @ rai > rv iit ‘ 
ie 
d 
‘ Ls 
i ven dite 
4 4 7 
a4 i ; , . 4 ai 
‘ = ‘ } are Md q 7 ¥ ] 
% . ‘ ae yw 2) rie Tor ye uit 
we bag at \ a 
a rei) me Os hw i l= | > ne } r 
- i \ aaa uae to ‘ ha P F 
chs 4 : a » ns, 
*huadt ti pts) Van te ipo ty Yr rane i it ay, futte Rh aes 
Fy f Y J ‘ - ‘ ; 
HEAT Pe, 4 bMS pe EAM Maines i veel 
vi i i arty ; 
a) m4 Whi As a safe Sana ie 


¥ 
iq , ~ 
fn ce ae 
he > ‘ ' 
‘ a \ F 
” ; 
, ea 
' . 
> 2 ri oa 
a i i 
¥ 
f ri ) - 
A; ae 41 
: i ‘ene P * 
J of a 
a. a ' ’ f 
' f y } . 
4 : é 
ays t rary 
 f 
@ d ; 
j Aa 
} i . 
°) id y 
i a ig 
“a . f 
ae tix Sy ‘4 
i 








ya a Prive) Ne Lee 


pene) iyi Ses Tare Mal ce ae 
oe it) en 


j My 
Tae Ne ge 




















BF21 .P96 v.34 
The influence of tuition in the 


Princeton Theological Seminary—Speer Library 


MAM 


1 1012 00008 5474 





